So you converted a set of Vic Jr's? Standard or high port?

Lost a little static comp and with that cam, the dynamic is not too great either.

Could have saved you a good deal of $ for the performance level achieved.



For all those guys wanting the BIG cam sound who aren't serious track stars, I'd stick to smaller grinds (duration < 220) and lower LSA's. That'll give you the chop you want while keeping your daily driver... drivable.

-Mindgame

 

I would not be so sure about what you say. The cam cost me 250.00 and I did the rest of the work myself. The heads cost me 1200.00 and are fully race ported and polished. My car can more than hold its own here at such a high altitude. In addition, I am only running a 45hp shot, my car can handle at least a 200HP shot as it sits which would put me in the low to mid 10's where I am at. That is low to mid 9's at sea level! I would like to see you do all this for what I have paid for. Bring your car up here at 6k altitude and lets see what you can bring with your savings. Our difference here is that I can do the work myself, and you obviously pay people to work on your car if you can bring a savings to me for the parts cost I have involved. I dont care if you like my cam or not, but dont diss my car and choices because you think you know everything.

 

well considering his car is a NA 9 second 6 speed street car I think your talking crap to the wrong person.

 

That does not impress me. I doubt you can fault me for saying that he CANT save me money when all I spent was parts money for the cam and heads. Can you put heads and a cam on my car for less than the wholesale parts cost that I got, and pay me for the labor? Who will pay for the labor and give me a savings compared to what I spent? Huh, anybody?! How much did you spend on your heads? Mine will outflow most, and Mine were not even made for my car as I was doing something lots of people dont even know how to do with them. F your buddies et times around Sea level, that is not the issue. I am not impressed. If you bag on my perf. and are arrogant enough to say you can save me money on my parts just because you think my cam is too big, you are wrong. My costs vs. perf results are well in my favor. As for you Bird, I am not the one that talked smack. I listed my mods and gave my findings. I never was the one who claimed to be the best, or who replied to somebody and said your sh_t sucks and I could have done better for far less w/o knowing all the details and assuming things. Its people like you guys who make the internet boards a waste of time. That is why I have been a member for a while and rarely post. Too many *** pirates who want to start sh_t behind a keyboard for no reason. Back at ya.

 

hey little tards stop arguing in my thread .......i just wanted to know some good ideas for cams and driveability and such

 

Man... some of you guys are ovary-sensitive.

Well, the NHRA uses a correction factor to settle such disputes... terms like density altitude should mean something to you if you do much racing. Not that it matters too much... this wasn't meant to be a contest.

You say, "6000 ft"?

Do all your racing at Bandimere (~5800)?

The highest CO tracks I'm familiar with from my racing days were 4500-5000 range... Pueblo, Grand June, etc..

For the curious... my best times at MIR were with a DA of ~1600. We're lucky to have a very nice track just 80' above sea level. Either way, the corrections level the playing ground.

Since this is a technical forum, let me explain why I think you're missing out on some power.

For one, you're admittedly running a static CR of 9.5:1 and using your cam specs I'm calculating a dynamic comp of close to 8.0:1 which is on the low side of what you'd really like to have (~9.0:1)... at your elevation, I'd want even more. A smaller cam would increase your dynamic comp and add average hp to your stats, which would probably go quicker down the track.

The Vic Jr's you machined, welded and plumbed for LT1 reverse cooling all by yourself use a 64cc or 70 cc combustion chamber. I'm guessing you went with the 64s but either way, Edelbrock uses that bigger chamber to fit your large valve combination... that and they're really built with small cid race or street strokers in mind (compression-wise).

If someone were looking to duplicate your build they could save themselves a good deal of time and effort by purchasing a set of ready-to-bolt-on AFR 210 or 227's. If you wanted to step up to a raised port 23º head, there's even more power potential.

By the way, just adding a lot of nitrous doesn't guarantee anything ET-wise. You will go quicker but you'll just find more chassis tuning is necessary. It's just never that easy.

If I'm ever up that way, I'll give you a shout.

-Mindgame

 

Somebodys panties sure are on tight. Hope you feel better after typing all that crap above.

 

Its all about combination.....what works for one ,one way,,another can go totally different route and achieve the same goals..
point in hand a car I done,which was pretty much a full weight lt1 TA...ported faactory Lt1 heads flowed peak 248cfm,cam 240 range @.050 hyd. roller, .550 lift with 1.6 rockers,heads were milled to yield roughly 11:1 ,all things considered no piston reliefing was necessary on a 120K stock bottom end..

car ran 11.05@120.1 with 3:73 gears on pump gas ,hal shocks only suspension mod,and on a 26x10 ET street...

only reason I'm posting anything is to prove one thing,,,,,,sometimes a lil thought process can go a long way..bigger isnt always better,but then again sometimes it is....All depends on the whole package you end up with, as I said there are many ways to get to the local market..

 

shhhh...joe be quiet..dont tell everyone that massive peak flow bench numbers aren't the only thing that matters.

 

oops and to think i ran 9.3 with only 298 cfm ....LMAO

 

Ok... lets see if I have this straight. The above combo runs 11's up here. That's cool. Now please explain why you said in your PM that I'd be lucky to hit 13's and would likelt be in the 14's up here on my set up??? I know for a fact I'd take a big ET hit up here, but not 2.5 to 3 seconds, LOL. Looks like I might have to get my green turd TA up here after all...
Steve...

 

bwwwaahahaahhahah..are you seriousl..lol. Steve..my guess since your times were not in our sub sea level Da you would take about .5 hit at best. If you remember your runs were around +1000 DA . It woudl just take some tuning at that altitude your at. Why even bother with this guy man..he bairly broke 11s on the jug. YOu did that with a bolt on car Better yet..let this guy come racing down here where is car will run low 9s ....I will be more than happy to line em up.

 

Ok, I guess I am wrong and you guys know everything even though you dont have any experience where I live. I simply know this, cars up here that simply do just bolt on's and cam/heads with an LT1 do not make 11's. If your car is stock cubes and you just have bolt on's, exh, gears, tires,tuning, and you can make 11's up here, you could put every shop out here out of business!!! That is where my info is coming from. Not talking bad about anybody's cars, I just know what I have seen. Ask the shops in Colorado what these mods will get them (including proof), and you will get an answer like mine. Talk bad about me and my car all day!! At least you guys get fired up about what you love. I respect all the mods everybody does because there is no one way to do things. As for my car and everybody dissing my cam, a shop in town duplicated my setup with a blower-hence my low compression- and has hit low 10's and high 9's, which is good. Also, as far as the correction factors go, how come brand new cars perf results at sea level vary by up to a second or more at Bandimere? Stock C5 vettes with an auto run low 14's up here. Stock SS from 2001 with a LS1 and some minor bolt ons ran a 14.4. Enough said for me on this subject. Go to Coloradof-body.com and check out the mods done and the times others are getting so you can get another unbaised viewpoint!

 

damnet man...shutup...I only had 245 cfm when I went 10s..but your busting too many internet racers bubble here man...

 

I guess everyone should start correcting to sea level.

http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/116_0306_nhra/

There are the NHRA correction factors. Bandimere is the highest track I know of in CO at ~5800 ft (should use DA for more meaningful results) so anyone running there corrects to sea level by multiplying their ET by .9276 and MPH by 1.0773.

So seeing a new auto Vette turn 14 second 1/4's there is ~13 flat when corrected. Not to assume that every car will run 1 second slower up there cause it doesn't work that way. For instance, a 10 second car at Bandimere is a 9.3 second car at sea level. The factor is less than 1.0.

whonxt's 11.9 second car with those nice Vic Jr's he converted is almost an 11-sec flat car at sea level. About what Steve's car would run if he corrects for the DA on his quickest run. Quite a ways from the estimates whonxt gave you eh?
Heck, even my best times are subject to a correction at almost 1700 DA.

And of course Joe the wonderdog is right as usual... it's all about the combination.

-Mindgame